Wikipedia Recession
From iGeek
Biden re-invented the word recession, and the far left made many edits to revise history to fit the narrative.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2020-05-25 |
Some of the dispute is that while the generally accepted position (in the U.S.) is 2 quarters of negative GDP (and has been used in media and common use for 50 years), the NBER definition is a little looser, "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales"... and the U.S./U.K. definition is not globally universal.
The leftist Newspeak types want to use pedantics or bureaucratic rules to prevent change the article to support them (or fight against clarification). Like:
- it used to say "The U.K., now they want to add the U.S."... because the U.S. has also historically used that same definition.
- it says it down below in the detail section, so why does it need to call it out in the summary/header too?
- or they claim, "that's the USA/UK definition, and we want to be global site so we should go with a more ambiguous global definition" even though most of the people looking it up in the English version will want the U.S./U.K./Oz defintion. So their globalist argument confuses more than it helps.
- Those same people will fight against both definitions and clarity. This is how they won the war of terminology and invented Fascism as a "right wing" ideology. They were left wing branch of Socialists... but in Europe, authoritarians (Socialists/Communists) are right wing... so they call them right wing, despite it meaning the exact opposite in America. They used Global definition over American, and single definition over both for brevity, to offer a page that teaches people the opposite of what it actually means. When the truth hurts your agenda, lie or muddy the waters.
- they want to use policies about editing or terminology, NBER is a trusted source, and despite the common usage and ever paper using 2 quarters rule for the last 50 years, we should ignore that, and go with the uncommon and accademic definition, instead of the common use one. Of course they'll argue the opposite when it suits their arguments (like argue about Sex/Gender meaning XX or XY, or when life begins). The left is fighting to make the language less clear, but always perverted to fit their agenda.
All of that is bullshit. But to be fair -- Republicans kind of started it... and there is a valid point in the lefts edits.
- The first edit was clarifying that the 2 quarters rule included the U.S., and then was tweeted out by a Republican. [1]
- Wikipedia has said for years, "In the United Kingdom, it is defined as negative economic growth for two consecutive quarters"... [2]
- A preface was added that, "Economists typically consider two consequence quarters of negative GDP a recession."
- This correction is true; the U.S. used the same definition as the U.K., and most economists, including the ones not defending Bidenomics, have used that definition. So Wikipedia should have said so all along. But it didn't. And nobody fought it, because it's a pain fighting leftist pedants on Wikipedia that will revert anything they don't like. So only when Biden politicized the definition to try to lie (exclude his recession), did this become a fight. [3]
- Second the meme/posts claiming that Democrats were trying to edit the definition to fit their leaders Newspeak wasn't the whole truth. The left had done a cloudy definition in the first place (for a decade). And the left resisted clarifying, if the truth/clarity exposes something the left doesn't like. This is the same war I've seen on the term Fascism or other things on Wikipedia. The left has already crapped it up... and will fight un-crapping it. But they don't have to change as much because they got there first... they just have to resist change/fixing what they already graffiti'd.
- Of course the facts that the Republicans had missed clarifying this sooner, is skipped over by the left. The conservatives definition is more correct. But the right only pays attention when the left draws attention to an issue. The left made the term an issue, and the right noticed they've been distorting it behind their backs for a decade.
So there's ambiguity... Republicans drew first blood by finally fighting back against a leftist distortion (muddled non-definition) that has existed for years. Or did they just finally respond to first blood?
But leftists have a minor point in there about what is a recession.
- The Biden recession is unique in that while GDP is down and prices are up, real income is down, production is flat... and employment is not down. So they focus on the NBER definition and "Employment" as a key indicator.
- The facts/rights argument is less clear (but more correct) that it says "normally visible in"... not ALWAYS visible in. Just because we're seeing it in every indicator except employment, doesn't mean that it's not a recession. Normally, they track together, this time they didn't. It's still a recession, proven by consumer sentiments.
- Generally, employment tracks, or leads the economy. Right now it's sort of a lagging indicator? A recession without increases in unemployment is rare. So the far left is trying to pretend that means it isn't a recession. And of course we know if this was a Republican President, they'd be screaming it was a recession. So the hypocrisy irks. But there is a point. This one is a little different.
- Why? The natural next question is why is this recession behaving differently? And there are good answers that all point to this is still a recession.
- COVID drove down employment, as did Bidenomics paying people to not work, the great retirement, etc. And we're still recovering from that. So we're having a recession in the middle of a job recovery -- it's only natural that when companies can't find enough workers, that they wouldn't lay off more.
- I think of this more like a war economy than a normal recession; people can't afford stuff, and inflation is up, workers are gone, and the economy is producing less of value, so people are looking for workers, even though there's a downturn (for everything but tanks and bombs). From the consumers point of view, they can afford less and growth is cooling off (as are their 401Ks)... but there's still work.
- We don't know if jobs will cool off or not. But we do know that consumer confidence is way down -- and that's kinda the point of a recession. People can buy less, and are in a Carteresque malaise.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
Honestly, wikipedia wasn't at fault on this one. In fact, it appears they did everything right.
- They locked down the page while it was in dispute, and tried to find a generally accepted term.
- Their original definition was kind of crappy -- but that was a more a function of the underlying bias of left leaning accademics and editors, that settled on an unclear definition to begin with.
- The additions by the right were generally improvements. And will likely get blocked, as the left is more tenacious about thier lies than the right is towards the truth.
- But the left does have a point burried in there too. And it might get lost, or more likely over-stated to the point of being ignored.
Once a topic gets politicized, it's nearly impossible to fix it. And the left policizes everything.
I've tried to get passed the roadblocks -- but like environmentalists against Nuclear PowerPlant they can put up enough hurdles to make it economically unviable to fight... until the public and environment loses.
So we'll see... and as usual, some of the best / most interesting information on Wikipedia, is in the talk pages, on a dispute over something.
Videos[edit | edit source]
CSPAN  |
|---|
CLINTON: "Recession is 2 quarters in a row of negative growth" - Pres. Bill Clinton Dec. 19, 2000 |
| Tucker Carlson |
|---|
It turns out we're insane: including a dozen examples of them using "two consecutive quarters" rule. |
🔗 More
| |
| |
🔗 Links
- https://www.outkick.com/wikipedias-bans-edits-to-recession-page/
- https://nypost.com/2022/07/29/elon-musk-blasts-wikipedia-after-it-suspends-edits-of-recession-page/
Tags: Wikipedia Fake Facts
